S R KRISHNA IYER Vs. K V LALITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above civil revision petition is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 28. 4. 1999 rendered in R. C. A. No. 8 of 1996 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge) Kumbakonam thereby by confirming the fair and decretal order dated 24. 4. 1996 made in R. C. O. P. No. 25 of 1990 by the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Kumbakonam.

(2.) THE tenant who has lost his case before both the Courts below is the petitioner herein. The first respondent who is the landlord has filed a petition under Sections 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in R. C. O. P. No. 25 of 1990 on the file of the Court of Rent Controller (District Munsif) Kumbakonam as against the appellant herein on averments such as that the husband of the first respondent is the owner of the building and after his demise, the first respondent became the owner of the said property; that the appellant herein took up the tenancy in the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- payable according to English calender month; that even after the expiry of lease period, at the request of the appellant herein he was permitted to run his family business by fixing the machinery with an enhanced monthly rent of Rs. 100/-; that the appellant herein was regular in paying the rent till May ,1989; that thereafter, he was irregular in payment of monthly rents and the payments made by the respondents towards rents were duly acknowledged by the husband of the first respondent; that the appellant herein had actually failed and neglected to pay the rents for the period from June,1989 till filing of a petition; that the first respondent herein required the premises for her own use and occupation; that she has to extend her weaving business in the said premises; that since the petitioner herein did not vacate the premises even after the repeated requests made by the first respondent, she has also issued a notice on 20. 6. 1990 demanding the arrears of rent due by the petitioner for the period from June 1989; that the petitioner herein sent a reply dated 27. 7. 1990, further sending a sum of Rs. 540/- at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month till June 1990; that the first respondent herein received the said amount under protest; that since the petitioner herein paid the rent amount in a lumpsum, he has committed wilful default.

(3.) THE petitioner herein, who is the respondent in the main RCOP No. 25 of 1990 had filed the counter thereby denying all the allegations of the petition filed by the first respondent herein. He has further submitted that the monthly rent of the petition premises is only Rs. 90/- but not Rs. 100/-; that with the permission of the first respondent's husband, he has spent Rs. 4,500/- to provide electric connection and the hand pump in the premises; that there is no default on the part of the petitioner herein; that as required by the first respondent herein through the Legal Aid Committee, he has to pay the arrears of rent for five months due from January 1990, that since the first respondent herein refused to receive the same, after the receipt of the notice, he has sent a demand draft dated 25. 7. 1990 for a sum of Rs. 540/- at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month from 1. 1. 1990 to 30. 6. 1990; that he is ready and willing to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month from 1. 7. 1990 and hence there is no default on the part of the petitioner herein; that it is not true to say that the first respondent requires the premises to expand her weaving business, since she is not able to maintain the existing weaving business; that further, since the petitioner herein is doing weaving business in the premises of the first respondent, if he is evicted from the premises, it would cause great loss and hardship to the petitioner herein.